Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused due to the highway safety implications of the loss of the car park for ancillary use for the hospital. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 May 2015.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the principle of the development for residential purposes was acceptable.  Objections had been received from Holywell Town Council and the public including two petitions. 

            Ms. L. Burnell Jones said that there were no objections to the project but where it was to be sited was a concern.  The proposal would take away the only long stay car park in Holywell, which was used by those who attended the hospital and it was felt that this would have a profound effect on the community.  She commented on the significant problems that would occur for emergency vehicles as the proposed road width and turning circle would make it difficult for those vehicles to manoeuvre.  The unadopted road was very narrow and Ms. Burnell Jones suggested that there was also a water course in the area and that land contamination from previous uses was also a cause for concern.  She commented on the limited number of parking spaces for the size of the proposal and said that current and future traffic generation would be an issue.    

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He commented on the advice that he had received about the need to declare a personal interest in the application but added that he did not feel that he had an interest.  He said that an extra care facility would be welcomed in Holywell but not on this site as it was currently used for long stay car parking provision and was an essential ancillary car park for the hospital.  He commented on the survey which had been undertaken about the car park usage over a 24 hour period and suggested that the mitigation parking areas would be insufficient.  Councillor Roberts detailed the number of patients that were treated in various departments and clinics in the hospital and said that lives would be put at risk if the application was approved. 

            Councillor David Roney said that the project was welcomed in Flintshire but indicated that when Tesco opened in Holywell, money was given to provide an alternative parking area, which was on this site.  He added that it was already difficult to park at the hospital and doctor’s surgery. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Peter Curtis, thanked the Chairman for allowing him to speak.  He agreed that the Extra Care Facility would be welcomed but felt that it would be more appropriate on an alternative site.  He commented on the survey which had been undertaken over a 24 hour period and spoke of the current problem of finding a car park space which he suggested would worsen if the application was approved.  He felt that if those visiting the town could not find a parking space, they would shop elsewhere and suggested that it was important to maintain the site for long stay parking. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that the facility would be welcomed but the site visit had showed the problems that would be experienced if the car park was lost.  He queried the number of spaces that were to be provided as part of the proposal and suggested that the total figure was inadequate.  Councillor Derek Butler referred to the late observations where it was reported that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board supported the proposal.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that the loss of ancillary parking would cause highway issues and that the survey that had been undertaken was inadequate; he suggested that the application should be refused because of lack of mitigation parking that was to be provided as part of the scheme. 

            Councillor Christine Jones said that the car park was not designed for use by those attending the hospital or the doctor’s surgery and suggested that it was used as an informal park and ride scheme.  She commented on the other Extra Care facilities in Flintshire and explained that residents did not experience problems with parking at those sites.  She added that other locations for the project had been explored but were unsuitable. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the survey had not been undertaken over a 24 hour period but was carried out in two 12 hour sections, one in the week and one at a weekend.  The issues of road widening and possible land contamination as raised by Ms. L. Burnell Jones were covered by conditions 7 and 16 respectively.  The amount of parking included in the proposals for the Extra Care facility took account of staff and visitors and were in accordance with the Local Planning Guidance.  He advised that other sites had been examined but had been ruled out as unacceptable. 

            Councillor Richard Jones sought clarification on the parking survey figures and the Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control provided details of the survey results and how these had been used to calculate the parking provision for the proposal and the mitigation parking areas.  It had been suggested that the current car park was used as an informal park and ride service and therefore was not used in connection with parking for visitors to the town.  Councillor Carol Ellis suggested that the application should be refused or deferred until information about the car park usage was known. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that the ancillary use of the car park for those visiting the hospital or doctor’s surgery was not what the long stay provision was intended for.  He suggested that the hospital should provide adequate spaces for those visiting the hospital and added that 55 spaces would be provided for long stay use in addition to those proposed for the Extra Care Facility.  He added that the funding for the project was time limited and refusal of the application would mean that the proposal would not take place. 

            In summing up, Councillor Gareth Roberts commented on the impact of losing the car park site and spoke of the large number of undeveloped application sites in the area which would create extra demand on the hospital and therefore the car parking area.  He said that the Extra Care Facility would be welcomed and commented on the prospect of losing the funding for the project.  He added that the application should be refused because of the loss of car park that had become vital for the ancillary use of the hospital. 

            Councillor Ellis proposed deferment of the application to await further information, which was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, the proposal to defer the application was LOST. 

            Councillor Roberts requested a recorded vote but was not supported by the requisite number of Members.

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.         

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused due to the highway safety implications of the loss of the car park for ancillary use for the hospital.